fbpx

Tobacco

Limited State Registries Will Negatively Impact Consumers of Nicotine Products 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the first few months of 2024, more than a dozen bills have been introduced in US states calling for a state-based Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) registry for alternative nicotine products such as vaping devices, heaters, and nicotine pouches.

Although this type of legislation has already been passed in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama, it’s crucial that other states recognize the unintended consequences and course-correct before it is too late.

ELIZABETH HICKS, US Affairs Analyst at Consumer Choice Center, responded, “While the intention behind these bills is to manage consumer access to unregulated nicotine products on the illicit market, the reality is that the FDA is not approving enough new devices and products to create a competitive, regulated marketplace that meets consumer demand.”

While 26 million nicotine alternative products submitted PMTAs to the FDA, only 23 have been approved. Of those 23 approved products, 12 are simply tobacco-flavored e-liquid refills.

“The FDA is hiding the ball here on product approvals and how few new products are actually coming to market. If the goal is to improve public health across the country, then consumers deserve to choose from a variety of different nicotine alternatives,” added Hicks.

“The FDA’s flawed PMTA process needs reform. Instead of restricting consumer access to products that have been demonstrated to be 95 percent less harmful than combustible tobacco, state legislatures should refrain from adding to counterproductive federal policies and advance tobacco harm reduction through a competitive marketplace,” she concluded.

_______________

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

FDA’s Juul crackdown is the latest blow in the irrational war on nicotine

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration handed down a consequential decision affecting millions of consumers: a marketing denial order for Juul Labs, maker of the popular pod-based Juul vaping device.

It’s best summarized as an immediate ban on Juul products.

This forces gas stations, convenience stores, vape shops, and other establishments that stock these devices and their flavored pods to immediately stop selling them to customers who want them.

Now, the FDA’s actions have been temporarily halted by the D.C. Appeals Court, giving the company additional time to argue its case in the judicial system.

While the judicial order is a fleeting sigh of relief for users of these products, it marks only the latest causality in the public health establishment’s irrational war on nicotine and nicotine products. And a sign that yet more denials will continue to reduce consumers’ access to nicotine alternatives, products known to be much less harmful than smoking.

The convoluted and byzantine process Juul failed is known as the Premarket Tobacco Product Application, an FDA-mandated permission test for any firm wanting to sell a new tobacco product (all pre-2007 are grandfathered in).  As one would guess, the standards for this test are opaque, unclear, and entirely arbitrary.

Only a handful of vaping products have been able to pass the FDA’s mandate of “improving public health” since 2015, and only one not made by a tobacco company. As of writing, there are tens of thousands of vaping devices, liquids, and component parts still awaiting their fate from the FDA.

That latter point is an important one because the FDA — and laws passed by Congress — now recognize vaping products, even those containing synthetic rather than tobacco-derived nicotine, as tobacco, which justified this strenuous process.

What the bureaucratic labyrinth forced on every mom-and-pop vaping firm and tobacco company alike shows us is that the FDA has a persistent bias against consumer use of nicotine vaping — and nicotine more broadly.

On its own website, the FDA lists the products it has approved for quitting smoking, mainly pharmaceutical drugs like Chantix and Zyban, or nicotine patches or gums from Nicorette, distributed in the U.S. by pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline.

The United Kingdom’s government, on the other hand, recognizes the benefits of vaping devices and actively recommends them, citing the figure of 1.2 million British vapers who have now quit smoking.

The UK cites internationally available scientific research and endorsements by health bodies as another reason why smokers should consider putting down their cigarettes for a vape. Does the FDA not have access to this data? Or is this part of a bigger trend?

In the same month the FDA handed down this decision, it is seeking public comments on its proposed bans on flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes and will soon introduce a rule limiting nicotine levels allowed in cigarettes. How these rules will impact the relationship between law enforcement and minority communities –  who use menthol products more often – has yet to be clarified, and neither has the risk of increased illicit markets, already the case in Massachusetts and Canada, which have their own menthol bans.

To think that when states are looking to legalize cannabis to end the drug war, it is baffling that we are beginning a new drug war on nicotine at the same time.

In all of this, the leading assumption, as the FDA website clearly states, is that people looking to quit already have the answers, and those answers are pharmaceutical products or nicotine abstinence programs that have received the government stamp of approval.

The millions of Americans who have quit smoking through vaping devices bought at gas stations or vape shops are taking a risk the FDA deems too dangerous, or as many health campaigners note are “more dangerous” than smoking.

Those claims stand against a litany of scientific studies and papers that prove that vaping is a less harmful alternative to tobacco use.

Why then, would noted anti-tobacco groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Lung Association, and others be so focused on banning vaping products?

The nationwide anti-vaping efforts represent an organized effort by activist and tobacco control groups — often connected to the funding of billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — to try to eliminate vaping as a safe and accessible nicotine alternative to combustible cigarettes.

We know this from several countries where these groups helped push vaping bans, such as Mexico and the Philippines, but also from Bloomberg’s $160 million grant to US organizations to campaign against youth vaping.

The pivot away from tobacco to focus on vaping, especially the “youth vaping crisis,” is as much about the money as it is the numbers.

According to the CDC, the current U.S. smoking rate is just 12.5%, down from over 20% not more than a decade ago. Nicotine alternatives like vaping devices, snus, and pouches have played a large role in this, as have broader cultural taboos on smoking.

And while the justification for restricting vape devices is because of youth use, the CDC’s own data shows that less than 0.6% of high schoolers used a Juul device more than once a month, down considerably over just two years. That downtrend trend is consistent among all vape products.

The confusion comes with how the data is tabulated, showing the percentage breakdown of high schoolers who vape and the products they use, often leading politicians and campaigners with the impression that far greater young people try vaping than they do. And this does not include those who vape cannabis products, which in former surveys showed higher numbers than nicotine vaping.

Regardless of those facts, vaping is in the crosshairs.

Despite the millions spent, there is no admission that responsible adults use these products in far greater numbers, and have positive health outcomes as a result.

This latter point has, thankfully, been taken up by a select group of tobacco researchers who understand the continuum of risk and laud vaping’s potential for getting smokers to quit, including Cliff Douglas, director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network and the former vice president for tobacco control at the American Cancer Society.

Were this a rational and science-based conversation and regulatory process, those positive health outcomes would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the global war against vaping products, this is more an ideological battle than a mission of pure health.

The FDA has been all too willing to play this game in the court of politics, and they should be condemned for doing so.

Yaël Ossowski is a Canadian-American writer and deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.

New Zealand’s generational tobacco ban is madness

Featured image credits: New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at a December news conference in Auckland, New Zealand. Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images

Since the 1970s, New Zealand has implemented many tobacco control measures, such as an indoor ban, advertising restrictions, and excise taxes, among many to tackle smoking. The price of cigarettes in New Zealand is among the highest globally. Despite smoking rates falling at an unprecedented rate, New Zealand believes there is no need to stop here, and a generational tobacco ban is now on the table. 

The generation tobacco ban would essentially ban people born after a particular year from buying cigarettes. The law is expected to be enacted in New Zealand in June this year, and everyone born after 2008 will not be allowed to buy cigarettes in their lifetime. 

The first question that the proposal begs is: why 2008, and not 2009 or 2007? By setting a subjectively determined cut-off date, the government of New Zealand will divide the society into two groups of adults (or once-to-be adults) who can buy cigarettes and those who can’t. The discriminatory nature of the ban is rather striking. From a public health perspective, those born before 2008 and smoking can be seen as a burden on the system–so why punish the other group, who, given the falling smoking rates, likely wouldn’t choose to smoke anyway?

The evidence on the effectiveness of generational smoking bans is weak. Instead of driving down the smoking rates, the tobacco sales ban not only doesn’t help the smoke-free cause, but it can also increase the smoking incidence among the youth. Bhutan, where the imports of tobacco products were banned during covid, demonstrates that such bans are riddled with unintended consequences and rarely achieve their original goals. After all, the Great Prohibition in the US stunningly demonstrated that, regardless of what the governments imagined when implementing bans, people always find creative ways to satisfy their wants. 

That is where the booming black market, encouraged by bans, fills the gap. In Bhutan, the only impact of the ban on the import and sales of tobacco products was to make them significantly more expensive, making illegal under-the-counter sales and the smuggling of these products even more attractive. That was also the case in South Africa, where banning the sales of tobacco and alcohol during covid boosted the illicit trade in these products.

Given the scope of the tobacco control measures in the past 50 years, I wonder if there is an endgame. New Zealand has tried it all. Indoor bans, plain packaging, excise taxes, and now the generational ban. What happens if the ambitious goal of becoming smoke-free doesn’t work out for New Zealand (which is bound to happen)? Where do we go from there? Do we outlaw thinking about smoking or using the word “tobacco”? This madness must stop. 

Nicotine flavor ban: A lesson in why a bill should not become a law

A few years ago, a liberal law professor friend in New York asked me to help her with a lesson. I was tasked with coming up with a public health policy that students across a wide ideological spectrum could agree upon.

I suggested a policy promoting public health education explaining how vaccines work, as part of an educational campaign to support more widespread acceptance of essential vaccinations.

This proposal met some key criteria in that it was not intrusive, it was based on science as well as common-sense, was always timely and was consistent with broad-based public health goals.

The professor reported back that my topic led to a lively discussion about policy-making and was instructive about how to govern effectively, especially in politically polarized environments.

Now I’d like to propose another public health policy discussion that reasonable people with a wide range of ideologies should also agree upon, but this time, we’d evaluate a policy that should be widely rejected.

The same type of fundamental criteria apply. The proposal should be overly-intrusive, based on neither science or common-sense, particularly untimely, and inconsistent with broader public health policy goals.

A bill so ill-conceived is now being introduced by a member of the New York State Assembly who lives in my Upper West Side neighborhood. Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal is proposing to ban flavored nicotine pouches used by adult smokers to quit smoking.

These pouches fall into the category known as non-combustible alternative tobacco products. They contain nicotine derived from tobacco, but unlike other forms of oral tobacco such as chewing tobacco and Swedish-style moist snus, they don’t contain actual tobacco leaf. Nonetheless, they are still regulated as tobacco products and are subject to the strict regulatory process now being implemented by the Food and Drug Administration. 

Those rules include a requirement that a product be authorized for marketing only if the agency finds it to be “appropriate for the protection of public health.” And, of course, sales of any tobacco product to anyone under 21 are illegal under federal law.

A basic tenet of regulatory policy can be drawn from the restrictions the Supreme Court has placed on laws affecting constitutional rights, which is that a rule must be specifically and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

In the case of a proposed ban on flavors in nicotine pouches, the stated interest is to prevent youth use of a tobacco product. In that regard, it is quite compelling.

But the rule is certainly not at all tailored to achieve that purpose. The ban would apply to all flavored products, not to minors who would purchases it. 

In fact, because these are legally considered to be tobacco products, it is already illegal to sell these products to anyone under 21 in New York, as well as the rest of the country. So essentially the law is a ban on the sale of these products to adults.

Another way to evaluate such a proposal is to ask the questions, we asked in the academic setting:

  • Is the proposal intrusive?
  • Is it based on science as well as common-sense?
  • Is it timely?
  • Is it consistent with broad-based public health goals?

Such a ban would certainly be intrusive. It would prevent adult smokers from access to a significantly less harmful alternative to cigarettes. Flavors are essential In order for products such as these to be appealing to adult smokers an alternative to a cigarette. “Intrusive” is a rather gentle term when trying to describe a rule that would take ban access to a product that could save an addicted smoker’s life.

The proposal is also devoid of any science. Although the science is clear, youth should not use any nicotine containing products, a ban on the sale of lower-risk nicotine products to adults has no evidentiary basis and undermines the well-established public health principle of harm reduction. Remember, because sales of tobacco to those under 21 are already illegal, the only legal change this rule would cause is a ban on sales to adults. So common sense, together with our national history regarding prohibition, make it clear that Assemblymember Rosenthal’s proposal fails this test miserably as well.

As New York continues to grapple with public health challenges caused by the Coronavirus pandemic, including the tragic scandal related to the state’s handling of nursing homes during the pandemic, now seems like a strange time to introduce an intrusive and unscientific ban on a product which, even the bills’ supporters recognize, aren’t being used by youth, as were e-cigarettes.

In fact, the regulations on e-cigarettes have given fewer acceptable lower-risk alternatives to adult smokers who can’t or won’t stop using nicotine. So now would be a particularly dangerous time to ban the sale of flavored nicotine products to adults.  

Finally, the proposed ban is inconsistent with broader public health policy developed by Congress and now being implemented by the Food and Drug Administration.  The FDA has consistently explained that “tobacco products exist on a continuum of risk, with combustible cigarettes being the deadliest.”  The FDA is counting on lower-risk non-combustible products, authorized by the agency, to replace cigarettes for adults who need or want to use nicotine. A state ban on products the FDA is currently evaluating as a tool for tobacco harm reduction would undermine the difficult but promising regulatory process.

The pandemic has reminded us that the government has tremendous power over everyone’s lives, even in a freedom-loving democracy as ours. But there’s a line — there are standards as outlined above that can help us distinguish between rules which promote public health and those which, no matter how noble the stated intention, serve to undermine it.

Originally published here.

Brüssel will Raucher und Dampfer wieder zur Kasse bitten

Die EU-weite Tabakmindeststeuer soll erhöht werden, auch das ‚Dampfen‘ betreffend. Geht gegen Einkaufstourismus, der durch noch höhere Steuern aber höchstens auf den Schwarzmarkt abgedrängt würde.

Im Juni billigte der Europäische Rat einen neuen Konsens über Verbrauchssteuern auf Tabakwaren. Die Mitgliedstaaten schlagen Änderungen vor, die den Tabakpreis erhöhen und auch Nicht-Tabakprodukte wie E-Zigaretten betreffen würden.

Seit 2011 gibt es in der Europäischen Union eine gemeinsame Mindestverbrauchssteuer auf Tabakwaren, wodurch sich die Zigarettenpreise in den europäischen Ländern mit vergleichsweise niedrigen Steuer deutlich erhöht haben. Nachbarländer mit höheren Steuern behaupteten, dass grenzüberschreitende Käufe ihre eigenen Ziele in der Gesundheitspolitik untergraben würden. Beispielsweise kaufen deutsche Pendler Tabak in Luxemburg, da der Preis dort niedriger ist als in ihren heimischen Geschäften.

Jetzt, da die Richtlinie von 2011 nicht die Ergebnisse gebracht hat, die einige Mitgliedstaaten erwartet hatten, oder, was eher anzunehmen ist, Steuereinnahmen nicht in der Höhe, die die Staaten in der aktuellen wirtschaftlichen Situation benötigen, wünschen sie eine Revision. Auch wenn Mitgliedstaaten Tabakpreise selbst erhöhen können, bringt jede Erhöhung auch eine Steigerung der Pendlerkäufe mit sich: Besonders deshalb will man höhere Mindeststandards. Hinzu kommt, dass politische Entscheidungsträger bei Kritik zu den neuen Preisen einfach auf Brüssel verweisen können.

„Illegaler Handel korreliert mit einer erhöhten Steuerbelastung.“


Diese Revision bezieht sich nicht nur auf konventionelle Tabakprodukte wie Zigaretten, Schnupftabak, Shisha oder Zigarren und Zigarillos. Zum ersten Mal fordert der Europäische Rat, dass auch Nicht-Tabakprodukte in die Tabakverbrauchsteuer-Richtlinie aufgenommen werden. E-Zigaretten oder Heat-Not-Burn-Geräte stellen Alternativen für Konsumenten von konventionellen Tabakprodukten dar. Einer offiziellen Untersuchung in Großbritannien zufolge sei der Konsum dieser Produkte 95 Prozent weniger schädlich als das Rauchen von Zigaretten. Der Europäische Rat kommt zu dem Schluss, „dass es daher dringend erforderlich ist, den Rechtsrahmen der EU auszubauen, um derzeitige und künftige Herausforderungen in Bezug auf das Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts zu bewältigen, indem die Begriffsbestimmungen und die steuerliche Behandlung von neuartigen Erzeugnissen (wie Flüssigkeiten für E-Zigaretten und erhitzte Tabakerzeugnisse), einschließlich nikotinhaltiger oder anderer Erzeugnisse, die Tabak ersetzen, harmonisiert werden, damit Rechtsunsicherheit und regulatorische Unterschiede in der EU vermieden werden”. Eine umständliche Formulierung für „mehr Steuern”.

Wie ernst ist es den EU-Mitgliedsstaaten mit der Verbesserung der Gesundheit, wenn sie mit ihrer Präventionspolitik die Steuerlast der Verbraucher erhöhen? Eine Untersuchung aus den Vereinigten Staaten zeigt, dass jede zehnprozentige Erhöhung des Preises von E-Zigaretten-Produkten zu einem elfprozentigen Anstieg der Zigarettenkäufe führt.

E-Zigaretten sind eine Sache, aber wir sollten uns nicht von der Vorstellung täuschen lassen, dass eine höhere Besteuerung von Zigaretten jemandem nützt. In den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates selbst wird anerkannt, dass Europa mit einer Welle des illegalen Tabakhandels konfrontiert ist, und es werden mehr Lösungen zu dessen Bekämpfung gefordert. Illegaler Handel korreliert mit einer erhöhten Steuerbelastung: Indem wir einkommensschwache Haushalte mit Zigaretten besteuern, die dennoch ein legales Produkt bleiben, drängen wir sie auf den Schwarzmarkt, wo kriminelle Elemente von einer solchen Gesundheitspolitik profitieren. In Frankreich zum Beispiel wurde in einem Bericht aus dem Jahr 2015 festgestellt, dass das Land mit einem Marktanteil von 15 Prozent Europas größter Konsument von gefälschten Zigaretten ist.

„Wir müssen Gesetzesänderungen nicht nur auf ihre erklärten Absichten hin analysieren, sondern auch auf ihre voraussichtlichen Ergebnisse.“


Da es keine Qualitätskontrolle gibt, stellen diese illegalen Zigaretten eine viel größere Bedrohung für die Gesundheit der Verbraucher dar. Hinzu kommt, dass die Einnahmen aus dem Verkauf dieser Zigaretten dem Terrorismus zugutekommen können – dem französischen Zentrum für Terrorismusanalyse zufolge finanziert der illegale Tabakverkauf sogar 20 Prozent des internationalen Terrorismus. Organisationen wie Al-Qaida und ISIS finanzieren ihre Aktivitäten auf diese Weise.

Die vom Europäischen Rat vorgeschlagenen Änderungen an der Richtlinie über Tabakverbrauchsteuern sind kontraproduktiv. Sie werden die Wahlmöglichkeiten einschränken und die Gesundheit der Verbraucher negativ beeinflussen. Wir müssen Gesetzesänderungen nicht nur auf ihre erklärten Absichten hin analysieren, sondern auch auf ihre voraussichtlichen Ergebnisse.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Harga murah, rokok seludup jadi pilihan

KUALA LUMPUR 30 Julai – Disebabkan harga yang lebih murah dan mudah diperoleh, pasaran bagi rokok seludup di Malaysia terus laris dalam kalangan perokok di negara ini.

Pengarah Urusan Consumer Choice Center (CCC), Fred Roeder berkata, bilangan rokok haram yang diseludup masuk ke Malaysia adalah luar biasa.

“Pemerhatian kami menunjukkan permintaan bagi rokok seludup adalah tinggi kerana produk haram ini dijual pada harga semurah RM5.00 berbanding produk sah yang dibayar cukai.

“Jika trend ini berterusan, pasaran rokok Malaysia akan sama sekali ditakluki oleh produk haram dan murah hanya beberapa tahun lagi,” jelasnya dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Malaysia mempunyai kira-kira lima juta perokok dan sebilangan besarnya adalah mereka yang menghisap rokok seludup.

FRED ROEDER
Fred Roeder

Pasaran rokok haram mencacah 60% berdasarkan jangkaan daripada hasil rampasan yang dijalankan agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan.

Baru-baru ini juga, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (JKDM) berjaya mematahkan cubaan menyeludup 456.03 juta batang rokok dari bulan Januari hingga Jun 2020.

Jumlah tersebut menunjukkan peningkatan mendadak berbanding 236.2 juta batang rokok yang dirampas pada tempoh sama tahun lalu.

“Perokok juga mungkin beranggapan produk yang murah dan tidak dibayar cukai adalah bagus untuk poket mereka berikutan kelembapan ekonomi akibat COVID-19,” katanya.

Pengguna juga berdepan dengan beberapa impak negatif seperti produk tiada pematuhan.

Kajian pada 2015 oleh Jabatan Bioteknologi, Universiti Malaya mendapati rokok haram mempunyai kandungan tiga kali ganda tar dan nikotin. 

Produk ini kerap dicemari oleh bahan yang tidak diketahui semasa proses penyeludupan yang mendedahkan pengguna kepada risiko kesihatan yang lebih besar.

Selain itu, peralihan kepada pasaran rokok seludup juga menjadi pemangkin kepada lonjakan pasaran gelap yang membolehkan pasukan penjenayah meluaskan pilihan produk pasaran gelapnya ke dalam negara.

Ekonomi gelap Malaysia dianggarkan bernilai RM300 bilion termasuk aktiviti pengedaran dadah, produk paslu dan manusia.

Dalam pada itu, aktiviti haram tersebut juga memberi kesan kepada dana awam yang memaksa kerajaan menanggung kerugian tahunan sebanyak RM5 bilion dalam aspek hasil cukai.

Jelas Roeder, pengguna perlu sedar hak dan kuasa mereka setelah mengetahui produk haram tidak memberi manfaat kepada mereka.

“Pengguna Malaysia haruslah menuntut supaya semua pihak berkepentingan seperti penggubal dasar, agensi penguatkuasaan, pengeluar dan peruncit mengambil tindakan tegas dalam membanteras masalah ini secara mutlak.

“Kerajaan juga harus mempertimbangkan untuk melakukan perubahan cukai sebagai langkah mengurangkan permintaan kepada rokok haram di samping mengurangkan beban pihak penguatkuasaan,” katanya lagi.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Cheap Illegal Cigarettes Are Ruining Malaysia, Here’s How

Ask any smoker and they’d tell you that smoking cigarettes is a disgustingly expensive habit.

Costing between RM12 to more than RM20 a pack, after taxes, the average smoker can easily spend more than RM100, a week just, to scratch that nicotine itch.

Because of this high upkeep, it’s no surprise that most Malaysian smokers are turning to cheap, illegally smuggled cigarettes to fulfill their cravings.

According to an international consumer advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), over 60% of Malaysia’s 5 million smokers are regularly consuming illegal cigarettes.

Moreover, it was revealed that Malaysian enforcement authorities had managed to stop more than 450 million cigarette sticks from entering the country between January and June 2020 alone, compared to the over 230 million sticks confiscated over the same period the previous year. Proving that the tobacco black market is flourishing more than ever in the country.

The reason for this is simply because these illegally smuggled cigarettes are way, way cheaper than premium brand buds found over the counter, only costing between RM3 to RM5 depending on where you get them.

However, these cheap cigarettes do pose more danger to the country than we may have realized.

Healthwise, a 2015 study by University Malaya (UM) revealed that illicit cigarettes have been found to contain three times more tar and nicotine than that permissible by Malaysian law, besides having the tendency to be laced and contaminated by other unknown chemicals and substances, which would probably do untold damage on a smoker and secondhand smoker’s lungs.

Economically, the cigarette black market drains the country out of its tax income. The CCC reports that Malaysia suffers an annual loss of RM5 billion from Malaysian choosing to go for the cheap illegal option.

The existence of such black markets is also detrimental to the country itself, as the income gained from the trafficking and sale of illegal cigarettes inevitably supports criminal gangs and the import of other illicit goods such as drugs, knockoff products, even people.

To address this problem, the CCC suggests a radical reform to the country’s tax on cigarettes.

Given price is a key factor causing consumers to turn to illegal cigarettes, the Government should consider tax and price reforms for tobacco products as a measure to address illegal cigarettes. At the end of the day, reducing the demand for illegal cigarettes by way of tax reforms will also help reduce the sole burden on enforcement in addressing the tobacco black market.

CCC Managing Director Fred Roeder

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Consumer advocates call for tobacco tax reforms as illicit sales boom

KUALA LUMPUR: Global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) has warned that the sale and purchase of smuggled cigarettes — which can cost only a third of the price of the legal stuff — will continue to grow barring changes to local tobacco taxes.

In a statement, CCC said black market cigarettes had captured 60% of the market, which caters to an estimated five million smokers in Malaysia.

Fred Roeder, managing director of CCC, called the volume of cigarette smuggling “phenomenal”, adding that their popularity is driven primarily by their low prices.

“Our observation indicates demand for smuggled cigarettes is high because these illegal products are sold as cheap as RM5 (a packet). So, it is no surprise that these cheap smuggled cigarettes have a big demand.

“Smokers may think cheaper and untaxed products are beneficial, especially now when money is tight following the economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

CCC claims these illegal cigarettes may often contain up to three times the legal limit of nicotine and tar, which has financial implications on smokers in the long term.

Smuggled cigarettes also cost the government RM5 billion in uncollected tax revenue.

Roeder believes the government should consider tax and price reforms for tobacco products as lower prices for legal cigarettes would reduce demand for contraband.

The illicit cigarette trade is not unique to Malaysia. New Zealand authorities recently nabbed a Malaysian man who attempted to smuggle 2.2 million cigarettes worth NZ$2.72 million (RM7.7 million) into the country.

He faces charges under the Customs & Excise Act.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Les nouvelles règles de l’UE pénaliseront les fumeurs et utilisateurs de cigarettes électroniques

Maintenant que la directive de 2011 n'a pas apporté les avantages escomptés par certains États membres, ou, plus vraisemblablement, n'a pas produit le nombre de recettes fiscales dont les États membres ont besoin dans la situation économique actuelle, ils souhaiteraient une révision.

Dans ses conclusions de juin, le Conseil européen a approuvé un nouveau consensus sur les droits d’accises sur le tabac. Les États membres suggèrent des modifications des règles qui augmenteraient le prix du tabac et affecteraient également les produits non liés au tabac tels que les cigarettes électroniques.

Depuis 2011, l’Union européenne dispose d’un droit d’accise minimum commun sur les produits du tabac, ce qui a notamment entraîné une augmentation du prix des cigarettes dans les pays européens où les prix sont comparativement bas (comme la Pologne ou la Hongrie). Les pays voisins où les taxes sont plus élevées affirment que la prévalence des achats transfrontaliers va à l’encontre de leurs propres objectifs de santé publique. Par exemple, les frontaliers français achètent du tabac au Luxembourg.

Les avantages escomptés ne sont pas au rendez-vous

Maintenant que la directive de 2011 n’a pas apporté les avantages escomptés par certains États membres, ou, plus vraisemblablement, n’a pas produit le nombre de recettes fiscales dont les États membres ont besoin dans la situation économique actuelle, ils souhaiteraient une révision. Cette révision, cependant, ne vise pas seulement les produits du tabac conventionnels tels que les cigarettes, le tabac à priser, la shisha, ou les cigares et cigarillos. Pour la première fois, le Conseil européen demande que les produits autres que le tabac soient également inclus dans la directive sur les accises sur le tabac. Il serait ainsi difficile pour les États membres de prétendre que l’objectif est la santé publique et non la réduction des déficits du Trésor, car l’équivalent logique de cette démarche serait de classer les produits non alcoolisés parmi les boissons alcoolisées.

Les cigarettes électroniques ou les dispositifs “heat-not-burn” représentent des alternatives viables pour les consommateurs de produits du tabac conventionnels. Nous savons que, bien qu’elles ne soient pas inoffensives, ces vapeurs sont 95 % moins nocives que la cigarette. Selon toutes les logiques disponibles, les États devraient se réjouir de la prévalence de ces alternatives. Toutefois, le Conseil européen conclut qu’“il est donc urgent et nécessaire de moderniser le cadre réglementaire de l’UE, afin de relever les défis actuels et futurs en ce qui concerne le fonctionnement du marché intérieur en harmonisant les définitions et le traitement fiscal des nouveaux produits”.

Mauvais signal

L’ajout de droits d’accises aux produits à risque réduit envoie un mauvais signal aux consommateurs, à savoir que ces produits sont tout aussi risqués que les cigarettes. Des recherches menées aux États-Unis montrent que chaque augmentation de 10% du prix des produits à faible risque entraîne une augmentation de 11% des achats de cigarettes.

Dans quelle mesure les États membres de l’Union européenne sont-ils sérieux lorsqu’il s’agit d’améliorer la santé publique si leur méthode de prévention consiste à augmenter la charge fiscale pesant sur les consommateurs ? Les cigarettes électroniques sont une chose, mais nous ne devons pas nous faire d’illusions sur l’idée que taxer davantage les cigarettes n’est pas sans effet négatif. Les conclusions du Conseil reconnaissent elles-mêmes que l’Europe est confrontée à une vague de commerce illicite du tabac, et demandent davantage de solutions pour le combattre. Le commerce illégal est en corrélation avec l’augmentation des charges fiscales : en taxant les ménages à faibles revenus sur les cigarettes, qui restent néanmoins un produit légal, nous les poussons sur le marché noir, où des éléments criminels profitent d’une mauvaise gestion de la santé publique. Un rapport publié en 2015 a révélé que la France était le plus grand consommateur de fausses cigarettes d’Europe, avec 15 % de part de marché.

Un profit pour le terrorisme international

En l’absence de contrôle de qualité, ces cigarettes illégales représentent une menace beaucoup plus endémique pour la santé des consommateurs. De plus, les revenus de la vente de ces cigarettes profitent au terrorisme international – le Centre d’analyse du terrorisme français a même montré que les ventes illicites de tabac financent 20 % du terrorisme international. Des organisations telles que l’IRA, Al-Qaida et Daesh financent leurs activités de cette manière.

Les modifications proposées par le Conseil européen à la directive sur les accises sur le tabac vont à l’encontre des objectifs de santé publique et visent à réduire le choix et la santé des consommateurs. Nous devons analyser les changements de règles non seulement en fonction de leurs intentions, mais aussi de leurs résultats potentiels.

Originally published here.

________

(*) https://consumerchoicecenter.org/

Les nouvelles règles de l’UE pénaliseront les fumeurs et utilisateurs de cigarettes électroniques

Dans ses conclusions de juin, le Conseil européen a approuvé un nouveau consensus sur les droits d’accises sur le tabac. Les États membres suggèrent des modifications des règles qui augmenteraient le prix du tabac et affecteraient également les produits non liés au tabac tels que les cigarettes électroniques.

Depuis 2011, l’Union européenne dispose d’un droit d’accise minimum commun sur les produits du tabac, ce qui a notamment entraîné une augmentation du prix des cigarettes dans les pays européens où les prix sont comparativement bas (comme la Pologne ou la Hongrie). Les pays voisins où les taxes sont plus élevées affirment que la prévalence des achats transfrontaliers va à l’encontre de leurs propres objectifs de santé publique. Par exemple, les frontaliers français achètent du tabac au Luxembourg.

Les avantages escomptés ne sont pas au rendez-vous

Maintenant que la directive de 2011 n’a pas apporté les avantages escomptés par certains États membres, ou, plus vraisemblablement, n’a pas produit le nombre de recettes fiscales dont les États membres ont besoin dans la situation économique actuelle, ils souhaiteraient une révision. Cette révision, cependant, ne vise pas seulement les produits du tabac conventionnels tels que les cigarettes, le tabac à priser, la shisha, ou les cigares et cigarillos. Pour la première fois, le Conseil européen demande que les produits autres que le tabac soient également inclus dans la directive sur les accises sur le tabac. Il serait ainsi difficile pour les États membres de prétendre que l’objectif est la santé publique et non la réduction des (…) Lire la suite sur La Tribune.fr

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top
en_USEN